Disciplinary discretion,interaction and compassion: Transports between prisons from the perspective of the transporters

Abstract

This study examines the interactions between correctional officers and prisoners during transport between prisons, from the staff’s perspective, based on a thematic analysis of 14 interviews with transport officers in Sweden. The three central themes in their stories regarding their work – namely, disciplinary discretion, interaction and compassion – were analysed by following the process of picking up the prisoner, interacting during the ride, and reflecting on the core components of the work. Correctional officers aim to work stepwise in building alliances, understand the prisoners’ perspective and use discretionary discipline in verbal interactions to avoid physical violence. This facilitates a calm environment and smooth execution of the task, while also ensuring the officers’ well-being. The results are in line with what is known from prison work and also reflect differences due to the limited space and time spent in transport.

Introduction

Correctional officers serve at the front and centre of the correctional system. They are responsible for maintaining an orderly, safe and humane prison environment. As daily adjudicators of the prison environment, they can act as disciplinarians, administrators, managers, facilitators or mentors (Dirkzwager and Kruttschnitt, 2012). To be able to work safely, prison officers must perform their tasks using immense discretion (Liebling, 2000). Their work has been described as ‘dirty work’, work that is contaminated by physical, social and moral taint, and also causes emotional damage (Ashforth and Kreiner, 1999; McMurray and Ward, 2014; Mikkelsen, 2022). Their psychosocial work environment is adapted to security and safety to prevent riots, escape and violent outbreaks to the greatest possible extent, all behind high walls proclaiming security and isolation (Crawley and Crawley, 2013). Prisoners are also usually affected by mental and physical illnesses and disabilities, addiction to alcohol and/or drugs and other forms of social alienation (Watson et al., 2004). Nevertheless, the everyday practice in this environment is most often built on social interactions that could be argued to be friendly, which is a challenging contradiction inherent in the system.

Correctional officers include prison officers and those in other professional roles in similar facilities. However, they could also include other similar actors, as when similar tasks are carried out outside the prison. This is the case with transport between prisons, a neglected part of the prison system. Here, officers and prisoners are placed in a considerably smaller space and interact in a specific milieu. In Sweden, these transports are carried out by a unit within the Swedish Prison and Probation Service, by officers with the same training as those working in the prisons and, most often, with extensive experience of prison work. When this group of officers interacts with prisoners in such a small space, all aspects of the correctional officers’ discretion are heightened. Transports between prisons are a part of the prison system, but the physical preconditions are even more limited than inside the prison, involving fewer people and closer interactions. Thus, transport between prisons can be regarded as a condensed prison, where interaction and discretionary actions are more evident. Being outside the prison walls increases the risk of escape and other incidents. However, data from the Swedish Prison and Probation Service show that such incidents are extremely rare (Kriminalvården, 2022). Research has shown that prison transporter is an attractive position within the system and that turnover within the transport service is low (Svensson and Knutagård, 2017).

In this article, we seek to deepen our understanding of the practice in such a space by examining the work in prison transports. By asking how transport officers view their work, we can learn more about this distinctive practice within the system but outside the prison. Formally, the officers are prison officers, but their tasks are performed in a specific setting obviously different from the prison, although one in which prison rules apply. How do transport officers view their discretion, power and the types of human interaction skills they use? How do they consider the prisoners and their interactions with them? The aim of this article is to shed light on and better understand the specific practice of prison transportation from the perspective of the officers.

Theoretical framework

Our study focuses on disciplinary discretion, interaction and compassion, starting from Michel Foucault’s (1979) understanding of the prison system as a system of discipline whose predominant aim is to tame prisoners and enforce good behaviour. Disciplinary power generates individuals as both subjects and tools for disciplinary punishments. While physical power can be structured and delivered on demand in specific situations, discipline works in more subtle ways and is a central part of the officers’ discretion. This relates to Michael Lipsky’s (2010) argument that the discretion and actions taken by each officer in their work are needed for complex organisations to work. The actions are not only a part of policy implementation but they also make policy in practice. Thus, correctional officers’ actions in each situation are a part of the disciplinary system and are mainly carried out in ways that uphold a social setting in which all parties act to maintain a calm environment. Only when disciplinary discretion cannot maintain this social atmosphere is physical violence wielded, a fact that all involved are aware of.

In disciplinary discretion, the correctional officers interact and form alliances with the prisoners. They form their understanding of the practice while engaging in policy in practice. In the interactions, the officers cannot avoid relationships and emotional engagement with the prisoners (Halsey and Deegan, 2017). Still, both parties are also guarding themselves by trying to control the other. As Goffman (1959) pointed out, the persons involved in alliances will gather information from each other and investigate each other’s conception of self, attitude towards each other, appearance and conduct, etc. Information about the other helps to define the situation and enables one to gain knowledge of what to expect. Control is achieved by influencing the situation that the others present (Goffman, 1959). Being able to provide a prisoner with support and counselling when needed is essential in the creation of relationships (Liebling et al., 1999; Tait, 2011). Therefore, being a compassionate individual seems necessary to be a good correctional officer. Compassion belongs to a family of prosocial emotions, including empathy, sympathy and pity. It motivates helping and soothing behaviours in response to suffering (Stellar and Keltner, 2014). In sociological terms, compassion involves an active moral demand to address others’ suffering (Sznaider, 1998). These actions are grounded professionally by discipline, through discretion wherein interactions are used to maintain security, as well as to teach the inmates to evolve into civilised, contributing members of society.

Literature review

While there is a vast number of studies of life in prison, prison transports are seldom studied. Disregarding studies concerning transportation as deportation, the transport practice within a prison system has only been studied in a few studies. Haesen et al. (2021) showed that the carceral aspects clearly dominated also in medical transports in the prison system, why sick prisoners risked being humiliated by the prevailing transport conditions. Dominique Moran and colleagues (e.g. Moran, 2015; Moran et al., 2012) took a perspective of carceral geography and discussed this in relation to transports of women in the Russian prison system, but also in relation to carceral spaces and mobility in a wider sense. Moran considers transports as one of the spaces she calls ‘transcarceral’, within the system but beyond its apparent physical boundaries, a kind of ‘betweenness’. Movements in the spaces between have also been studied within the prison, as Armstrong’s (2018) study of the corridor. While none of these studies focussed on the transporters’ discretion or details in the performance of the transport, Svensson and Knutagård (2022) studied how transport officers relate to time in this mobile pratice.

Discretion, interaction and compassion in the prison system are generally studied within the framework of power (Crewe, 2011; Liebling, 2000; Liebling et al., 1999). Some studies have focussed on the task of establishing and maintaining security (Crawley and Crawley, 2013; Liebling, 2011; Scott, 2006). Others have shown the need for trust even within a frame of risk awareness (Ugelvik, 2022). Correctional officers’ behaviour influences the social atmosphere Liebling (2000, 2011) which also is shown in studies where prisoners’ voices have been heard (Dirkzwager and Kruttschnitt, 2012). Moreover, Barkworth and Murphy (2021) have shown that aspects of procedural justice in prisons have high value for order in prisons. From studies like these, we know that trust, procedural justice and acting in a way that promotes good social atmosphere support order and relative well-being in prison.

We also know that the power relations in prisons are predominantly implicit, and its physical part is rarely observed. It is a kind of discipline that Foucault called ‘pastoral power’, a kind of caring power, based on traditional philanthropic ideas where ‘the prisoners are ruled by kindness, chains are therefore not necessary’ (McGowen, 1995: 96, see also Van Drenth and De Haan, 1999). Both prison staff and prisoners are aware of who possesses power, and because of the dynamics of relationships, prisoners may try to challenge the power, overturn it or minimise it (Liebling et al., 1999). Within the disciplinary practice, prison officers are shown to generally adopt a peacekeeping role (Liebling et al., 1999). Staff and prisoners can benefit from establishing and maintaining good relationships with each other, as they primarily want a calm and safe environment (Crawley and Crawley, 2013; Tait, 2011). Crewe (2011) has argued that a more relaxed relationship hides the nature of power and strives to generate consent and legitimacy through humanised relationships. Even if the explicit aspects of power are hidden, they are known by all involved.

Still, for upholding the everyday life in prisons, staff and prisoners develop ‘familiarities’ where they bond by joining and showing acts of concern and kindness (Tait, 2011). Liebling (2000) emphasises the importance of ‘talk’ and informal rules in daily work with prisoners. Studies show that officers who privilege the human service function may use their authority to renegotiate the implementation of the law by providing additional support to prisoners (Dirkzwager and Kruttschnitt, 2012; Scott, 2006).

The work as a correctional officer is also an emotional labour. Several studies have related to Hochschild’s (2003) work in this area. Phillips et al. (2020) argued that ‘The lens of emotional labour shows us how criminal justice agencies manipulate employees’ emotion to achieve the goals of their job’ (p. 11). Zizek (2008) described that the attitude of understanding each other must be supplemented with an understanding of getting out of each other’s way. Nylander (2011) showed that prison officers in Sweden used a low-key strategy with non-provocative friendliness and respect in interaction with prisoners, where humour had a central position in the strategies. Nylander also showed a variation, where deep emotional labour was more visible at treatment wings and open prisons, whereas security wings and units contained more surface emotional labour. Studies of prisoners in exceptional situations, such as being sick or dying, have shown that professional scripts and the feeling rules are challenged by the exceptional situations (Humblet, 2020; Robinson, 2020). Thus, the emotional labour has to be acknowledged from its specific context and it challenges the staff. Correctional officers have to control and suppress ‘dirty emotions’ connected to dealing with prisoners’ emotions of anger, aggression and despair, to avoid ‘contamination’, and that they do so while adhering to the dominant emotional norms of the occupational group (Mikkelsen, 2022).

As shown, studies of prison transports are rare, while prison work has been studied from the perspectives of power and discipline as well as of trust, relationships and emotional labour. With our study, we will add knowledge on how these well-known aspects of prison work are transferred to the work in prison transports.

The specific context of transports in Sweden

Swedish prisons and other correctional institutions adhere to a Scandinavian tradition directed towards humanistic ideals and good facility standards (Nylander, 2011). As in many Western countries, there has been a change in perspective about imprisonment, including increased security and indirect use of power, in the last decades (Dirkzwager and Kruttschnitt, 2012; Liebling, 2000; Nylander, 2011). Even if a stricter system has been developed, rehabilitative ideas dominate the interaction between staff and prisoners in many respects. Ugelvik (2022) argued that Norwegian prisons still live in an ‘old penology’ world, where prisoners are seen as individuals. The same can be argued for Sweden, at least in everyday interactions.

The National Transport Unit (NTU) is a section within the Swedish Prison and Probation Service in which over 800 people work from 21 offices across the country (Kriminalvården, 2023). That is, the number of prisoners being transported each day is equivalent to the number in a normal prison. The officers undergo the same training as prison officers, wear the same uniform, and follow similar discretion. They have a strict strategy for controlling the security aspects of their work, while also being expected to offer support to the prisoners. Standard transports are carried out using a minivan with three rows of seats. At first glance, it appears to be a normal minivan, and its special attributes are not evident immediately. All prisoners are thoroughly assessed before transport to ensure that relevant security measures are adopted. In the overall planning of transport, as well as in the planning for a specific person, various complications are considered. This includes weather and traffic conditions, which prisoners could be transported in the same minivan, and the track record of each prisoner.

The transport of a specific prisoner could be short – between units in the same city – while others could be long journeys with stops for meals in other units within the criminal justice system. On long journeys the prisoner might be transferred to another vehicle to continue the journey, while the first minivan returns. Along the route, different prisoners are picked up and delivered following a set and strict schedule, managed by a national centre. The transport officers’ right to use forcible actions towards prisoners is the same as that of prison officers, based on the Swedish Penal Code and clarified through a memorandum from the Department of Justice (Justitiedepartementet, 2007).

Normally, the officers working on the team for each minivan consist of two to four transport officers, and each transport can take a maximum of four prisoners. The team starts the day by dividing their tasks and roles into that of a driver, a supervisor and escorts. The supervisor is primarily responsible for transport and security in the minivan, but also engages in the same work tasks as the escorts. The team must report to the national centre if something in the planning deviates from the plan, either for technical or external reasons or for internal reasons (e.g. if problems occur with the prisoners in the minivan). Minor aberrations that do not affect overall planning, such as taking a different route of a short distance, do not need to be reported. Major deviations from the plan, such as picking up prisoners in a different order, must be reported.

Ethics, methods and analyses

The study was designed as a case study using fieldwork and interviews conducted by a team of three researchers. The study was funded by the Prison and Probation Service after a proposal formulated by the researchers. The Regional Ethical Board in Lund, Sweden (2016/828), approved the fieldwork, while the same board concluded that the interviews did not involve any information that required consideration from the Board (2017/145). The Swedish Ethics Review Act (2003:460) does not consider professionals’ narratives concerning their work to be sensitive data. The National Transport Unit approved and participated in the study and accepted the security details presented. The overall results of the study are presented in a Swedish report (Svensson and Knutagård, 2017). The right to further publish the material was included in the agreement between the Prison and Probation Service and the researchers. The study presented here was conducted by two researchers as one of three sub-studies with different themes for a deeper analysis of the material. The first author had the main responsibility for processing the material, analysis and writing the text, while the second author participated in the analysis and finalisation of the text.

The study was based on an analysis of interviews, which were conducted and contextualised through previous fieldwork. The overall collection of data started with 2 days of fieldwork at the national planning unit and 10 days of fieldwork in transports at the end of 2016. We then conducted 14 interviews with transport officers based on questions anchored in their impressions from the fieldwork. In this way, we acquired not only their stories but also some insight into their practice, which could be considered a way to ensure the plausibility of the stories told. The interviews were semi-structured and conducted in early 2017 in five different locations in Sweden. The selection of units was made to ensure a wide variation in distances, the sizes of the working group, local cultures in the teams, etc. The interviews lasted for approximately an hour and revolved around officers’ perspectives on their work, tasks, discretion and professional identity. The interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Quotes from the interviews are marked with a letter relating to the unit where they work and a number relating to the specific interview with that unit: for example, (S2) or (H1). Their stories mirror the impressions we gained from the fieldwork; however, we are aware that only glimpses of the practice are exhibited, and an idealistic view may be presented. As our focus is on transporters’ depictions of their practice, this does not negatively affect the study; however, our specific perspective must be clarified.

For this study, the first author encoded the interviews and conducted a thematic analysis to uncover patterns in the officers’ way of discussing their work and discretionary practice. This analysis was discussed between the two authors. In addition, because the second author also worked thoroughly with the interviews, the interpretations could be said to have received interrater validation. This process led to the discovery of the three central areas that are focussed upon in this article: discretionary discipline, interaction, and compassion. Discretionary discipline refers to managing the controlling aspects and handling potentially unsafe and unpleasant situations. Interaction concerns meeting and relating to the prisoner, being able to sense the atmosphere and the prisoner’s mood, and ‘rolling with resistance’ to prevent violence. Compassion involves acknowledging the prisoner as a fellow human being and understanding this as the most fundamental component of the relations between the prisoner and the officer. All themes involve ways to relate to the prisoner, while also being concerned with how the transporters handle their own well-being, as we will show.

Findings

In the following three sections, we present the process of a transport in a stepwise manner with the help of our empirical data, starting with picking up the prisoner, followed by the interaction during the ride and the transport officers’ reflections on their professional role.

Setting the scene: Reception of prisoners

Before the actual journey began, the team prepared and planned the day. They checked the information provided on the people to be transported, as well as the weather and traffic conditions, and prepared the minivan. One of the transporters stated the following:

The most important aspect of security assessment is [to have a printed report] . . . know what kind of person it is, what they have done, and, most of all, if it is a troublemaker [as well as] if there is any risk of threat or violence. (H2)

In the assessment of the available information, the team emphasises the most recent information and creates an image of the person they are about to meet. Sometimes information is contradictory, while other times the transporters judge based on old information despite changes that may have occurred. One says, ‘we [can] get [information] that there has been an incident [three years ago]. However, this is not relevant. It is the last year [that is the most important]’ (K1).

The next step is to receive the person at the prison. During the reception, the transport officers meet prison officers, and the two categories of correctional officers unite in a process in which the responsibility for the prisoner is transferred from prison to transport. When the transporters meet the prisoners, they shake hands and present themselves, after which they inform the prisoners about the journey and what will occur. In the handshake and initial conversation, the status of the prisoner is assessed. This first impression shapes the following interaction. It is during the handshake that the officers position themselves and the prisoners as persons with different roles but a common task.

Sometimes it is I who [says], ‘Carl is my name’ [strikes out with his hand in a greeting]. Yes, you must demonstrate some authority, and I usually say that a little firm is good. I do not mean that I should take their hand and squeeze as hard as I can. No, because it will not be good. Shake paws and explain what will happen. (Ö2)

The transport officer sets the tone. They talk with the prisoner to glean an impression of the prisoner’s current state of mind and attitude about undertaking the journey: for example, by asking, ‘How are you doing?’ in a friendly way. The alliance thereby created holds components similar to those of a contract; the prisoner learns who is in charge and what might happen if he or she does not follow the rules; at the same time, they meet people who show respect and imply mutual interest in having a smooth journey. This information sharing could concern basic facts about the journey, as well as security arrangements, in which things could be said in a humorous tone, such as when moving to the minivan:

[It] works best if you say to the person, ‘Hi, I will conduct a body check of you now’ and ‘Is it ok with you’? So, I will lead you in and hold you, because we do it just so we do not have to run after you, and we might joke about it. However, this remains honest, treating them with dignity. (G2)

The transporters have emphasised that they do not want situations to escalate to such a degree that they must use violence. They have strategies for how they assess, approach, and inform the prisoners when they set the scene with the parallel aims of showing who is in command and making the trip a mutual task. In these stories, the ability to adapt to the prisoner is important. In addition, one officer states, ‘We are supposed to . . . lead by example’ (H3). Thus, officers must appear professional, but also as morally conscious citizens in society whom prisoners can look up to.

In building the working alliance, the correctional officers appear to start from the prisoner’s perspective. This is a part of positioning themselves as partners with a common interest in ensuring a smooth ride. Some basic questions, such as ‘Have you been to the toilet?’, recur during the reception. Although basic, such questions are highly relevant, as stops are not allowed for security reasons. The transport officers highlight the importance of being direct and clear, as it frames the level of safety in the minivan and enhances the prisoners’ understanding of the rules. The correctional officers know that security during the journey may be adversely affected if they do not enquire of the prisoner whether they want to go to the toilet, since it can lead to irritation and frustration during the journey. The question about going to the toilet is therefore not only a practical issue but also a way of defining boundaries, and in a friendly tone preparing to handle possible upcoming arguments.

Playing the game: Interaction during transport

During the journey, interactions should be maintained through the use of discretion that nourishes the alliance. In the interviews, many transporters discuss their interactions with the prisoners. There are various ways to handle interactions. Some transport officers are reluctant to initiate conversations, even if they like to talk:

Transporter:

I’m very happy if they want to talk.

Interviewer:

Do you usually talk with them yourself?

Transporter:

No, it’s rare nowadays.

Interviewer:

Is it mostly if they start something themselves?

Transporter:

I do not initiate many conversations. That time is over. We have nothing in common: If they ask questions and want to talk, I will talk. However, I do not initiate anything. (S1)

In other cases, the transporter takes the initiative to promote a positive atmosphere through implicit and symbolic actions towards the prisoner:

Well, we picked up a . . . guy. . . . he had all kinds of papers . . . and he was a bit sour when we picked him up. [After a short drive], I asked him if he wanted a cup of coffee . . . He looked at me so silly, so you really saw how he was thinking. ‘Yes, thank you, very much so’. After that, he was just as good and nice as ever. (K2)

The transporter states how, from his observations, he can judge the situation and arrive at a conclusion that lays the first brick in constructing the work alliance, in this case offering the prisoner a cup of coffee. The transporters talk about their ability to be supportive towards the prisoners as one of the key components of their profession. One states:

If they want to talk, maybe [prisoners] who have been in solitude for a year and have had limited access to people to talk to, except for the lawyer, often want to talk; you notice that. We should then give them the chance, I think. Then, you play a bit of that role, like some kind of amateur . . . psychologist . . . (Ö1)

Such conversations that take on a supportive and counselling tone, as a ‘hobby psychologist’ and a professional, can be considered a balance between ‘just’ being a human being and being able to be a professional in the conduct of professional practice. Some officers argue that it is their ‘duty to listen’ (G1) to the prisoners. Eventually, the prisoner begins to trust the officer and starts to unburden themselves. However, the interaction during transport is limited in both time and space. In prison, the prisoner and officer have a different relationship because of the prisoner’s long-lasting residence, which might increase the risk of conflict. This factor was often mentioned in the interviews:

. . . the work is very different. We can see in the [prisoners] how they are to us, in relation to how they are to our colleagues at the remand prison. We have more good, soft guys here. This was because they were outside, [and] we will never deliver any negative decisions. (G2)

Because prisoners typically do not become acquainted with the transport staff and vice versa, they do not bond as they spend only a few hours with each other, instead of days, months or years. Therefore, transport officers can offer the prisoner a break from their relationships in prison.

We do not really have a relationship with them. This is [both] good and bad. In prison, they can stay for a very long time. The relationship could be really positive when it is an immediate transport after some kind of trouble; they have brought the punishment upon themselves. They have been in the same wing, maybe a couple of years, scuffed themselves on each other. The staff is tired of them, and they are tired of the staff. Then we come, whom they have never met. We do not know anything about them; we do not really care either, and they know that they can just sit and listen to the radio for a few hours. (S1)

Thus far, we have discussed only conversations between prisoners and transporters, but there are often more people in the minivan and conversations between prisoners can develop. When this happens, the staff may risk losing overall control, which is why they prefer to avoid such conversations, particularly if they are speaking in a different language, that the transporter do not understand:

. . . we do not like [if they talk to each other]. This is regardless of whether they are restricted by the attorney. It is especially not [tolerated] if they do not speak in Swedish. [In such cases], we normally interrupt: ‘No, stop, you cannot talk; we do not understand what you say’. Usually, this is respected. (S3)

The transport officers in this study emphasised that they can easily order prisoners to stop if they start discussing inappropriate topics. It is also noted that the best way to keep prisoners and the atmosphere in the car calm is to ‘rub prisoners the right way’:

In prison, it does not work if they always get [what] they want. They can then [get] into the minds of staff [and always] receive what they want. This is because they are [always] there. We have them for two or three hours. Thus, it does not matter if he gets what he wants. (Ö1)

The officer can listen to the prisoner’s story, but the demarcation between what can be discussed and what cannot is distinct. Officers telling the prisoner that he or she (the officer) is not interested in discussing crimes or will not tolerate prisoners speaking in a different language can be interpreted as an attempt by the officer to regain power over the conversation.

Being a friend, but also in command

As indicated in the interviews, the transporters’ methods directly impact the people being transported. A skill often mentioned is social ability, or the ability to handle people with different backgrounds, personalities, and problems. As a correctional officer, one must be sensitive to the social atmosphere and be an expert in body language. One must also adopt a social distance from the prisoners and not allow personal thoughts and feelings to show:

Basically, if you do not have a sense of social interplay – and, if you do, you can easily get angry – it is not a good situation. You must be able to manage colleagues and other people in a socially amiable manner. You must accept that those we drive might have done things that are very, very unpleasant. [They may be people] you are very, very uncertain about [and those you have] opinions about on a personal level that you never, ever can leave space for in your professional role. (M1)

The transport officers argue that they must also have control over impulses and emotions and be able to adopt a fundamental way of approaching people. Perhaps, the most important skill that transporters should possess in the conceptualisation of professionalism lies in being able to handle people socially and knowing when one should be inviting towards the prisoner or adopt a low profile.

This is related to social skills . . . to be able to sense the atmosphere, when it is time to talk, when to approach, or when to hold back. It depends entirely on the kind of [prisoner] you have. It is not a thing you get directly . . . you learn to read [prisoners], which really facilitates your professional role. It is also about being calm and safe. You seldom solve a situation by losing your temper; instead, you should be calm, give yourself some space, be a bit analytic, and reflect. (M1)

From the interviews, the ability to read others is understood as being important in developing and gaining a better understanding as a correctional officer. It appears that patience is key to a successful job as a correctional officer. Officers must be empathetic and able to place themselves in the prisoners’ shoes, while being aware of their own position. One transporter reasoned about exhibiting authority while still supporting the individual. When needed, he also notes the importance of pausing for thoughts and reflection, such as asking, ‘Is this really the right thing to do, even if all the rules and regulations tell me so?’ (S2).

Some prisoners and situations have a deeper personal effect on transport officers, which may cause a discrepancy. A feeling of compassion for the prisoner, an ability to adapt to the prisoner’s state of mind and an understanding of the importance of being a professional, including following rules and maintaining a certain social distance, allow one to work successfully as a correctional officer. This kind of discrepancy is clearly shown in the following quotation:

We are fellow human beings. We work that way, and that is how it is; they are supposed to come out in society. I really try to give them not only the image of me as a person of authority, but also as a human being. As a fellow human acting [on behalf of] a task. Because it is me sitting there, I am the one who stops them from being free. That is a question you never stop struggling with: Who is right and who is wrong? What have you done to sit there while I am sitting here? You see, this question is repeated, and it is a kind of moral dilemma that we are fighting. (G1)

This transporter expresses a wish to be seen by the prisoner as a fellow human being working to fulfil his job requirements. There is an implicit desire to preserve the balance between showing a caring side of oneself and maintaining authority.

Conclusion

This study has shed light on how transport officers in the Swedish Prison and Probation Services reason about their role and task, but also given a glimpse of the practice as such. We have seen an alignment between what is known about prison work and the stories told by the transport officers. Also here, the interaction between prisoners and correctional officers is emphasised as important for the power balance and the officers acknowledge that they have influence on how the social atmosphere develops (cf. Barkworth and Murphy, 2021; Crawley and Crawley, 2013; Crewe, 2011; Dirkzwager and Kruttschnitt, 2012; Liebling, 2000, 2011). The transport officers in this study have the same training as prison officers, they work under the same rules and regulations, and they share the same values. However, the very close interaction, in a very limited space during a limited time, makes the situation in the transport different from life in a prison wing. It puts the interaction on an edge where we can see the dynamics.

We have shown how the officers are aware of the social dynamics in the interaction. Immediately, they take command in the interaction and set the scene by presenting themselves and how the transport is planned. At the same moment, they observe and assess the prisoner’s status and attitude, so that they can decide what kind of social components are necessary to form an alliance. Through a handshake, the parties are positioned in relation to each other, and the frame is set for how to understand the process they are about to share. During the transport, the interaction continues in a way that follows the prisoner’s mood. The transporters are observing the prisoners through their body language, but also by talking to them. The talk is crucial to the interaction, as Liebling (2000) has pointed out, and it is extra crucial in the transport where the aspect of the disciplinary system is put on the edge. Just as in prisons, if prisoners try to challenge the rules, they are at risk of seeing a glimpse of the authoritative side of the system. If needed, the transporter explicitly claims the power he or she possesses for shaping the prisoner to fit into the frame, as well as for encouraging the prisoner to engage in good behaviour. This does not have to be physical, it could also concern the talk, what to talk about or in which language the conversation should be held. When boundaries are crossed, for example, when transported prisoners talk to each other in a language the officers do not understand, or about inappropriate topics, the officers react in a way that highlights the superior position they hold. Within these boundaries, the situation is managed through small gestures, implicit actions, and the acknowledgement and handling of the prisoners’ state to ensure that the conversations revolve around neutral topics.

The specific setting of the transport is often described by the transport officers as the primary reason for working there instead of in a prison. The kind of ‘betweenness’ the transport constitutes forms relations and interactions that are easier to handle for the correctional officers. It is a question of here and now, where the parties take on their roles and build alliances for this specific task. In this setting, the ambition of being compassionate and performing an emotional labour is easier to realise. Nylander (2011) showed that those working in open wings or treatment facilities could exhibit deep emotional labour more easily, while those in high-security facilities displayed surface acting and also faced more problems handling their own well-being. In this study, we have also seen that compassion, deep emotional labour, might be possible in the transport, as it is situational. This compassion is needed to build a working alliance that helps smooth the joint journey. However, it is not personal, and it is limited in time. The transporters do not typically engage with prisoners; instead, it is more of a role-playing game. The transporters ascribe themselves to being good people and having good manners, even serving as role models. They highlight the need for social skills to continuously assess prisoners, sense the atmosphere, and maintain social distancing. Of course, all professional roles could be seen as role-play, but the limited time and space in transport puts it all on the edge and the roles become more obvious.

The ability to feel compassion for and talk to the prisoner is important for facilitating the situation (Liebling, 2000; Tait, 2011). Today, focus has been placed on prisoners getting the chance to regulate feelings by himself or herself, instead of getting punished immediately (Crewe, 2011; Halsey and Deegan, 2017); thus, the stigma of the correctional institutions and prisons as punishment facilities is strongly challenged. Officers do not want to be associated with the stereotypical prison guard who punishes the prisoner simply because of their authority. They want to relate to prisoners as human beings.

The work as a transport officer offers a chance to be ‘good, soft guys’ for a short period, whereas the security and order in the transport can remain. Prison officers and prisoners tend to bond with each other in a deeper way and develop familiarity with each other (Tait, 2011); yet, there is also the possible risk of the prisoners ‘eating their way into the minds of the staff’. This kind of emotional labour may lead to harmful outcomes in which the correctional officer is at risk of losing his or her true self (Hochschild, 2003). By balancing the mind and their feelings, and by a disciplinary discretion where the wall between imprisonment and freedom is kept, the transport officers can be proud of interacting in a friendly atmosphere and avoid violence, and even to serve as examples of nice persons, who engage. A task that is more manageable when the interplay always is limited to a short period of time.

Discussion

Correctional officers always play a variety of roles, and their tasks demand immense discretion. In this study, we shed light on a correctional practice that is understudied, the transports within the prison system. The empirical data was collected in Sweden, which also is an understudied context where studies of correctional officers’ work are rare (Nylander, 2011). We have taken the perspective of correctional officers, focussing on their personal views. Largely, their stories align with what is known from prison studies. However, the limited time and space in the transport give specific preconditions, leading to limitations in what parallels can be drawn.

Distinguishing specific processes seems to enhance the comprehension of discretionary discipline. The act of transportation provides a particular scenario with a limited number of individuals, confined space and duration, which can aid in clarifying the concept. However, prison life is more intricate and involves numerous simultaneous interaction processes. Despite this, the study provides insight into how correctional officers reason about their actions on a micro level, utilising techniques to maintain a friendly demeanour while evaluating individuals to uphold their positions. As transport officers themselves draw parallels between their work and that of prison officers, they are evidently part of the system. Although this finding likely reflects the particular context in which it was conducted, it cannot be deemed applicable to prison transports in general, as this field of study remains open and requires in-depth, descriptive investigations. What happens in prison systems where other organisations, detached from the Prison Service, perform the transports? Are there any differences related to which organisation that perform the transports? Or whether they are public or private? Do the transporters anyhow share the values of the prison officers? Do they combine disciplinary discretion with compassion in their interaction with transported prisoners? We cannot know, as studies of prison transports are so rare.

More studies are needed on transports of prisoners in different settings, and we need more knowledge also about these practices from the perspective of the prisoners.